The  Case  of  Socialism  v. 
The  Catholic  Church 
and  the  United 
States 

BY 

HENRY  CHURCHILL  SEMPLE,  S.  J. 

Moderator  of  the  Theological  Conference  of  the  Archdiocese  of 
New  York 


New  York 

THE  PAULIST  PRESS 

120  West  60th  Street 


Copyright,  1918,  by  "The  Missionary  Society  of 
St.  Paul  the  Apostle  in  the  State 
OF  New  York  " 


THE  CASE  OF  SOCIALISM  v.  THE 
CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND 
THE  UNITED  STATES' 


HIS  paper  was  read  in  Cathedral  College  Hall 
on  December  18  and  20,  1917,  to  Catholic 
pastors  and  assistants,  presided  over  by  His 
Most  Reverend  Eminence  John  Cardinal 
Farley.  In  the  discussion  which  followed 
the  reading,  the  paper  was  approved  as  representing 
the  views  of  those  present.  This  brief  puts  together 
some  texts,  on  the  one  hand,  from  Encyclicals  of  Pope 
Leo  XIII.  and  accepted  maxims  of  Catholic  jurists  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  from  our  Declaration  of  Independence 
and  amendments  of  our  Federal  Constitution  and  pro- 
nouncements of  our  Federal  Supreme  Court  Justices 
interpreting  clauses  of  the  Declaration  and  amendments. 
In  these  authentic  texts  the  reader  is  enabled  to  see  with 
his  own  eyes  that  the  Catholic  Church  and  the  United 
States  hold  the  same  fundamental  principles  on  the  right 
of  private  property  as  founded  on  nature  and  God,  and 
as  limited  by  the  ample  authority  of  the  State  and  its 
laws  made  for  the  general  welfare.  Socialism  denies 
that  the  right  of  private  property  is  from  nature  and 
God,  and  is  thus  seen  to  be  fundamentally  anti-Catholic 
and  anti- American.  Given  the  Catholic  and  American 
principle  that  the  right  of  private  property,  although  de- 
rived from  nature  and  God,  is  yet  circumscribed  by  limits 
imposed  on  it  by  the  necessities  of  our  xieighbor  and 

^  Cf.  Vermeersch,  Quwstioncs  dc  Justitia,  n.  231  et  seq,  Hannis 
Taylor,  Due  Process  of  Law,  p.  491  et  seq. 


4 


THE  CASE  OF  SOCIALISM  v. 


the  ample  authority  of  the  State  to  enact  new  laws  suited 
to  new  conditions,  there  is,  at  least  in  our  country,  no 
excuse  to  heed  clamors  of  Socialists  or  the  Socialistic  for 
a  reconstitution  of  society.  It  is  hoped  that  the  texts 
here  put  together,  with  some  explanations  of  the  meaning 
of  their  terms,  will  help  to  satisfy  minds  now  more  or 
less  bewildered  by  dogmatisms  which  led  to  the  Keign 
of  Terror,  the  Pa.ris  Commune  and  the  Russian  Bolshe- 
viki. 

"What  is  meant  by  the  right  of  private  property?  It 
is  the  right  in  private  individuals  of  perfectly  disposing 
of  a  corporeal  thing  unless  these  individuals  are  pro- 
hibited by  the  law.  This  definition  was  made  by  Bartoli. 
It  is  commonly  accepted  by  other  jurists  and  also  by  the 
great  scholastics  such  as  Molina,  Lessius  and  Lugo. 

Another  definition  which  is  widely  received  is:  The 
right  of  disposing,  for  one 's  own  advantage,  of  the  utility 
and  the  substance  of  a  thing,  within  the  limits  placed  by 
a  just  law.  This  definition  more  clearly  distinguishes 
between  the  dominion  of  property  and  the  dominion  of 
jurisdiction,  which  latter  includes  the  right  to  dispose 
not  for  individual  advantage  but  for  the  general  welfare. 
It  also  more  explicitly  explains  what  is  meant  by  dispos- 
ing perfectly.  It  mentions  not  only  the  utility  but  also 
the  substance  of  a  thing. 

With  these  definitions  is  in  accord  a  celebrated  descrip- 
tion of  the  right  of  property  by  an  anonymous  Roman 
jurist:  ^^Jus  utendi  et  ahittendi  qiiatenus  juris  ratio 
paMitr — the  right  of  using  and  abusing  in  so  far  as  the 
law  allows."  Here  abusing  means  consuming,  and  not 
abusing  in  the  bad  sense,  and  also  refers  not  only  to  the 
utility  but  to  the  substance  of  a  thing.  As  the  reader 
may  have  noted,  the  definitions  accepted  by  Catholics  all 
limit  this  right  by  laws  for  the  common  good. 

These  definitions  do  not  limit  the  right  of  property 
by  the  extreme  necessities  of  others.    Such  necessities 


CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  UNITED  STATES  5 


rarely  occur.  It  is  perhaps  more  prudent  not  to  pro- 
vide for  them  in  explicit  definitions  or  laws  which  might 
be  easily  misunderstood  or  misapplied,  and  thus  be- 
come occasions  of  dangerous  suggestions  in  practice. 
However  this  limitation,  though  not  expressed,  ought  to 
be  ever  implied.  This  article  treats  of  the  right  of  prop- 
erty in  the  sense  of  a  generic  institution  as  opposed  to 
communism  as  a  generic  institution,  under  which  no  one 
would  have  the  right  of  private  property.  As  Lugo  ob- 
serves, ^^the  concrete  manner  in  which  this  right  exists  is 
not  completely  from  natural  law  alone,  but  depends,  at 
least  negatively,  on  human  law ;  not  only  because  many 
ways  can  be  introduced  of  acquiring,  losing  and  trans- 
ferring dominion,  and  in  fact  have  been  introduced,  by 
merely  human  law;  but  also  because  other  ways  of  ac- 
quiring dominion  w^hich  seem  to  have  been  introduced  by 
natural  law,  still,  at  least  negatively,  depend  on  human 
law,  since  they  could  have  been  prevented  by  human 
law;  as,  in  fact,  many  individuals  are  rendered  by  hu- 
man law  incapable  of  acquiring  dominion. 

Furthermore,  we  here  speak  of  nature,  natural  rights, 
and  natural  law,  as  the  remote  and  not  as  the  proximate 
moral  cause  of  the  right  jof  property.  Thus  in  our  coun- 
try all  the  titles  to  land,  came  first  from  the  State. 

The  right  of  property  is  not  a  natural  right  so  strictly 
as  the  right  to  marry,  which  v/ould  exist  among  men, 
however  few,  and  even  though  not  regarded  as  infected 
by  selfish  inclinations  coming  from  original  sin.  The 
right  of  property  must  exist  among  men  who  live  together 
in  a  great  number,  especialty  since  they  are  infected  by 
original  sin.  In  such  a  condition  it  would  be  wrong  not 
to  have  some  kind  of  civil  government  with  civil  au- 
thority. The  right  of  private  property  is  from  nature 
in  the  same  sense,  but  would  exist  even  though  no  civil 
government  existed. 

Let  us  now  hear  some  of  the  words  of  Leo  XIII.  teach- 


6 


THE  CASE  OF  SOCIALISM  v. 


ing  that  the  right  of  private  property  is  from  nature, 
under  God  and  His  providence. 

The  following  passage  is  from  the  Encyclical  Quod 
Apostoliici  Munerisy  December  26,  1878: 

*^More  wisely  and  profitably  the  Church  recognizes 
the  existence  of  inequality  amongst  men  who  are  by  na- 
ture unlike  in  mental  endowments,  and  in  strength  of 
body,  and  even  in  amount  of  fortune:  and  she  enjoins 
that  the  right  of  property  and  of  its  disposal,  derived 
from  nature,  should  in  the  case  of  every  individual  re- 
main intact  and  inviolate.  She  knows  full  well  that 
rohhery  and  rapine  have  been  so  forbidden  by  God,  the 
Author  and  Protector  of  every  right,  that  it  is  unlawful 
even  to  covet  the  goods  of  others,  and  that  thieves  and 
robbers,  no  less  than  adulterers  and  idolaters  are  ex- 
cluded from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  .  .  .  Moreover,  she 
lays  the  rich  under  strict  command  to  give  of  their 
superfluity  to  the  poor,  impressing,  them  with  the  fear 
of  the  divine  judgment  which  will  exact  the  penalty  of 
eternal  punishment  unless  they  succor  the  wants  of  the 
needy. ' ' 

The  following  passages  are  from  the  Encyclical  lierum 
Novarum,  May  15,  1891 : 

'^The  Socialists,  working  on  the  poor  man's  envy  of 
the  rich,  are  striving  to  do  away  with  private  property, 
and  contend  that  individual  possessions  should  become 
the  common  property  of  all  to  be  administered  by  the 
State  or  municipal  bodies. 

These  contentions  are  emphatically  unjust  because 
they  would  rob  the  lawful  possessor,  bring  State  action 
into  a  sphere  not  within  its  competence,  and  create  utter 
confusion  in  the  community. 

Every  man  has  by  nature  the  right  to  possess  prop- 
erty as  his  own. 

*'Man  precedes  the  State,  and  possesses,  prior  to  the 


CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  UNITED  STATES  7 


formation  of  any  State,  the  right  of  providing  for  the 
sustenance  of  his  body. 

'^The  limits  of  private  possessions  have  been  left  (by 
God)  to  be  fixed  by  man's  own  industry,  and  by  the  laws 
of  individual  races. 

''With  reason,  the  common  opinion  of  mankind — little 
affected  by  the  few  dissentients  who  have  contended  for 
the  opposite  view — has  found  in  the  careful  study  of  na- 
ture, and  the  laws  of  nature,  the  foundations  of  the  di- 
vision of  property ;  and  the  practice  of  all  ages  has  con- 
secrated the  principles  of  private  ownership,  as  being 
preeminently  in  conformity  with  human  nature,  and  as 
conducing  in  the  most  unmistakable  manner  to  the  peace 
and  tranquillity  of  human  existence.  This  same  prin- 
ciple is  confirmed  and  enforced  by  the  civil  laws — which, 
as  long  as  they  are  just,  derive  from  the  law  of  nature 
their  binding  force.  The  authority  of  the  divine  law 
adds  its  sanction,  forbidding  us  in  severest  terms  even 
to  covet  that  v/hich  is  another's:  'Thou  shalt  not  covet 
thy  neighbor's  wife:  nor  his  house,  nor  his  field,  nor 
his  man-servant,  nor  his  maid-servant,  nor  his  ox,  nor 
his  ass,  nor  anything  which  is  his.' 

' '  The  right  of  property  which  has  been  proved  to  be- 
long naturally  to  individual  persons  must  likewise  be- 
long to  a  man  in  his  capacity  as  head  of  a  family :  nay, 
such  a  person  must  possess  this  right  so  much  the  more 
clearly,  in  proportion  as  his  position  multiplies  his 
duties. 

''The  main  tenet  of  Socialism,  community  of  goods,  is 
directly  contrary  to  the  natural  rights  of  mankind, 

"Justice  demands  that  the  interests  of  the  poorer 
classes  should  be  carefully  watched  over  by  the  adminis- 
tration, and  that  they  who  so  largely  contribute  to  the 
advantage  of  the  community  may  themselves  share  in  the 
benefits  which  they  create,  that,  being  housed,  clothed 


8 


THE  CASE  OF  SOCIALISM  v. 


and  enabled  to  sustain  life,  they  may  find  their  existence 
less  hard  and  more  endurable. 

^  ^  When  there  is  a  question  of  defending  the  rights  of 
individuals,  the  poor  and  helpless  have  a  claim  to  special 
consideration  (from  the  State)." 

What  is  the  theological  note  of  this  part  of  our  thesis  ? 
What  theological  censure  would  be  incurred  by  him 
who  would  deny  its  truth?  In  our  answer  we  follow 
Vermeersch,  Questions  on  Justice,  n.  198.  That  the  sys- 
tem of  private  property  is  licit,  is  not  unjust,  is  clearly 
contained  in  Scripture,  and  is  to  be  held  as  of  Catholic 
faith.  He  who  would  affirm  that  this  system  has  its 
origin  from  the  State  and  would  deny  that  any  right 
of  private  property  has  its  origin  in  nature,  would  openly 
contradict  the  teaching  of  Leo  XIII.  and  incur  the  cen- 
sure of  temerity,  to  say  the  least. 

Can  a  Catholic  be  a  Socialist?  Not  if  he  holds  the 
main  tenet  of  the  Socialists,  namely,  that  all  individual 
possessions  should  become  the  property  of  all,  to  be 
administered  by  the  State  or  municipal  bodies,  or  that 
the  right  of  private  property  comes  from  the  State  and 
not  from  nature  and  God. 

The  words  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  which 
are  in  accord  with  those  of  Pope  Leo,  are:  *'We  hold 
these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are  endowed 
by  their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable  rights  and  that 
among  these  are  Life,  Liberty  and  the  Pursuit  of  Happi- 
ness; and  to  secure  these,  governments  have  been  insti- 
tuted among  men." 

The  Fifth  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  says:  '^No 
person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty  or  property, 
without  due  process  of  law,  nor  shall  private  property  be 
taken  for  public  use,  without  just  compensation." 

This  Fifth  Amendment,  ratified  in  1791,  limited  the 
power  of  the  Federal  Government  and  not  of  the  States. 
But  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  ratified  in  1868,  says: 


CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  UNITED  STATES  9 


''Nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty 
or  property  without  due  process  of  law/' 

This  amendment  was  made  in  order  to  limit  the  power 
of  the  States.  The  teaching  of  the  Supreme  Court  on 
the  origin  of  these  rights  is  seen  in  the  following  words 
of  Justice  Field,  cited  by  Mr.  Hannis  Taylor  in  his  new 
work  on  Due  Process  of  Law,  page  491:  "  'As  in  our 
intercourse  with  our  fellowmen,  certain  principles  of 
morality  are  assumed  to  exist,  without  which  society 
would  be  impossible,  so  certain  inherent  rights  lie  at  the 
foundation  of  all  governmental  action,  and  upon  a  recog- 
nition of  them  alone,  can  free  institutions  be  maintained. 
These  inherent  rights  have  never  been  more  happily  ex- 
pressed than  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that 
new  Evangel  of  liberty  to  the  people:  "We  hold  these 
truths  to  be  self-evident,"  that  is,  so  plain  that  their 
truth  is  recognized  upon  their  mere  statement ;  ' '  that  all 
men  are  endowed,"  not  by  Edicts  of  Emperors  or  De- 
crees of  Parliament  or  Acts  of  Congress,  but  '^by  their 
Creator,  with  certain  unalienable  rights,"  that  is  rights 
which  cannot  be  bartered  away,  or  given  away,  or  taken 
away,  except  for  punishment  of  crime ;  ''and  that  among 
these  are  Life,  Liberty  and  the  Pursuit  of  Happiness, 
and  to  secure  these,"  not  to  grant  them,  but  to  secure 
them,  "governments  are  instituted  among  men.  .  .  ." 
Among  these  inalienable  rights,  as  proclaimed  in  that 
great  document,  is  the  right  of  men  to  pursue  their  happi- 
ness, by  which  is  meant  the  right  to  pursue  any  lawful 
business  or  vocation,  in  any  matter  not  inconsistent  with 
the  equal  rights  of  others,  which  may  increase  their  prop- 
erty, or  develop  their  faculties,  so  as  to  give  them  their 
highest  enjoyment.' 

"The  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  intended  to  give 
practical  effect  to  the  Declaration  of  1776  of  inalienable 
rights,  rights  which  are  the  gifts  of  the  Creator,  which 
the  law  does  not  confer,  but  only  recognizes."    In  the 


10  THE  CASE  OP  SOCIALISM  v. 


same  case  Justice  Swayne  said :  ^ '  Property  is  everything 
which  has  exchangeable  value,  and  the  right  of  property 
includes  the  power  to  dispose  of  it  according  to  the 
will  of  the  owner.  Labor  is  property,  and,  as  such, 
means  protection.  The  right  to  make  it  available  is  next 
in  importance  to  the  rights  of  life  and  liberty."  In 
Allgeyer  v,  Louisiana  the  Court  said:  ^^The  liberty  men- 
tioned in  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  means  not  only 
the  right  of  the  citizen  to  be  free  from  the  mere  physical 
restraint  of  his  person,  as  by  incarceration,  but  the  term 
is  deemed  to  embrace  the  right  of  the  citizen  to  be  free 
in  the  enjoyment  of  all  his  faculties;  to  be  free  to  use 
them  in  all  lawful  ways ;  to  live  and  work  where  he  will, 
to  earn  his  livelihood  by  any  lawful  calling;  to  pursue 
any  livelihood  or  avocation,  and  for  that  purpose  to 
enter  into  all  contracts  which  may  be  proper,  necessary 
and  essential  to  carry  out  to  a  successful  conclusion  the 
purposes  above  mentioned.'' 

In  Adair  v.  United  States  the  Court  said:  ^^Each  right 
is  subject  to  the  fundamental  condition  that  no  contract, 
whatever  its  subject  matter,  can  be  sustained,  which  the 
law,  upon  reasonable  grounds,  forbids  as  inconsistent 
with  the  public  interests,  or  as  hurtful  to  the  public 
order,  or  as  detrimental  to  the  common  good." 

The  rights  of  life,  liberty  and  property  are  all  sub- 
ject to  certain  sovereign  powers  of  the  State,  such  as  the 
taxing  power,  the  power  of  eminent  domain  and  the 
police  power.  Therefore  such  rights  are  not  inalienable 
in  any  strictly  absolute  sense.  The  State  may  rightfully 
call  on  a  citizen  to  serve  in  the  army  and  give  his  life 
for  his  country  and  its  rights  and  liberties.  The  State 
can  rightfully  restrain  any  men  from  carrying  on  a 
business  which  is  immoral,  or  injurious  to  public  morals, 
or  which  causes  a  reasonable  suspicion  of  immorality,  or 
of  injustice,  private  or  public.  Any  business  affected 
with  a  public  interest  may  be  regulated,  provided  due 


CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  UNITED  STATES  11 


consideration  be  given  to  vested  rights  and  to  prior  con- 
tracts entered  into  by  the  State.  Purely  private  voca- 
tions are  as  a  general  rule  not  subject  to  restraint  by 
State  power. 

''However,  the  most  innocent  and  constitutionally 
protected  of  acts  or  omissions  may  be  made  a  step  in  a 
criminal  plot,  and  if  it  is  a  step  in  such  a  plot,  neither 
its  innocence  nor  the  constitution  is  sufficient  to  prevent 
the  punishment  of  such  a  plot  by  law."  Thus  Congress 
passed  the  Sherman  Act  and  the  Clayton  Act  to  prevent 
and  punish  acts  tending  to  monopoly,  to  forcing  prices, 
to  restraining  the  free  flow  of  trade  by  combinations 
which  block  free  and  fair  competition.  The  Sherman 
Act  has  been  already  upheld  by  the  Supreme  Court  as 
not  contrary  to  the  rights  of  liberty  and  property  and 
freedom  of  contract.  State  laws  imposing  a  minimum 
v/age  for  women  or  children  working  in  factories,  have 
been  upheld  by  the  Supreme  Court  as  being  not  arbitrary 
but  reasonable  restraints  imposed  on  capitalists  in  the 
use  of  their  property  and  the  exercise  of  their  liberty. 
The  Sixteenth  Amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution, 
finally  ratified  in  the  year  1913,  empowers  Congress  to 
impose  the  income  tax,  and  Congress  has  emphasized  by 
practical  measures  the  principle  that  he  who  receives 
more  individually,  owes  more  for  the  general  welfare. 

States  have  made  many  local  laws  limiting  liberty  to 
dispose  of  one's  own  labor  or  to  exercise  other  property 
rights.  On  appeal  against  these  laws  for  alleged  viola- 
tion of  rights  guaranteed  by  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence or  by  the  Constitution,  the  Supreme  Court 
has  ever  held  that  these  laws  are  void  if  they  are  arbi- 
trary, but  are  valid  if  they  are  reasonable  or  not  mani- 
festly unreasonable  or  arbitrary. 

Some  countries  have  no  clear-cut  written  constitution. 
Our  country  is  unique  not  only  in  having  the  oldest  writ- 
ten Constitution  but  also,  and  especially,  in  having  as 


12 


THE  CASE  OF  SOCIALISM 


the  guardian  of  the  Constitution,  a  Supreme  Court,  a  Ju- 
diciary which  is  not  subordinate  but  coordinate  with  the 
Legislature  and  the  Executive,  a  Judiciary  whose  mem- 
bers hold  office  during  life  or  good  behavior,  and  can  be 
removed  from  office  only  through  impeachment  by  a 
majority  of  the  House  before  the  Senate,  the  more  slow 
and  conservative  branch  of  the  Congress.  Our  Federal 
Judiciary  thus  far  have  little  to  fear  from  the  insolence 
of  office  and  power  or  from  clamors  of  the  multitude. 
Through  the  wisdom  of  Washington  and  Jefferson  and 
Hamilton  and  Madison  and  Pinckney  and  the  other 
fathers,  we  have  in  our  explicit  fundamental  laws  the 
sane  principles  of  St.  Thomas  and  Leo  XIII.  on  the  right 
of  property  as  from  nature  and  nature's  God,  and  on 
the  limitations  of  this  right  by  the  States  or  the  United 
States,  acting  reasonably  for  the  common  good,  and  on 
their  ample  authority  to  introduce  social  reforms  which 
may  be  deemed  needful  or  useful  in  our  day  of  big  busi- 
ness with  big  capital.  There  is  not  and  never  was  a 
country  where  the  law  made  property  more  sacred  and 
secure.  Though  the  most  conservative  in  this  respect, 
our  country  can  lawfully  be  also  most  progressive  on 
sane  lines,  truly  Catholic  and  truly  American.  There 
could  be  no  shadoAv  of  an  excuse  for  transplanting  to 
American  soil  foreign  Socialism,  whose  main  tenet  is 
public  ownership  and  public  administration  of  all  wealth- 
producing  property.  Socialism  is  not  only  most  anti- 
Catholic,  but,  by  the  fact,  also  most  anti- American.  For 
these  principles,  how  America  should  love  the  Church 
and  the  Church  America,  nay,  how  the  whole  world 
should  love  the  Church  and  America  as  the  two  mightiest 
guardians  of  principles  which  are  saviours  of  society 
from  envy,  madness,  anarchy,  misery  and  slavery. 


THE 

CATHOLIC  WORLD 


THE  OLDEST  CATHOLIC  MAGAZINE  IN 
THE  UNITED  STATES 

The  Catholic  World  presents  every  month 
capable  articles  on  matters  of  Catholic  interest* 
Among  its  contributors  are  the  best  known 
writers  of  America*  It  publishes  stories^  short 
and  long;  essays;  poems^  and  notices  of  recent 
books* If  you  wish  to  keep  in  touch  with  the 
best  in  contemporaneous  Catholic  literature^  read 
The  Catholic  World* 


S\:ibscription  Price    $3.00  a  year 


THE  CATHOLIC  WORLD 
120-122  West  60th  Street 
New  York  City 


